Steven Brown v. Willie Eagleton, No. 14-6726 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6726 STEVEN C. BROWN, a/k/a Steven Cory Brown, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. WILLIE L. EAGLETON, Warden, all sued in their official capacity respectfully; ROBIN K. CHAVIS, Associate Warden, all sued in their official capacity respectfully; JAMES BETHEA, Classification Worker, all sued in their official capacity respectfully; ARGIE GRAVES, Grievance Clerk, all sued in their official capacity respectfully, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. David C. Norton, District Judge. (8:13-cv-00674-DCN) Submitted: August 28, 2014 Decided: September 3, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven C. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. James Victor McDade, DOYLE, O ROURKE, TATE & MCDADE, PA, Anderson, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Steven C. Brown seeks to appeal the district court s order adopting the magistrate judge s recommendation to dismiss his 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 (2012) action against Defendants. has also filed a motion for appointment of counsel. Brown We deny Brown s motion for appointment of counsel and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). [T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement. The Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). district court s docket on November 22, 2013. on May 6, untimely. 2014. * judgment was entered on the Brown filed his notice of appeal Accordingly, Brown s notice of appeal is Although Brown suggests that he timely filed a notice of appeal soon after receiving notice of the district court s dismissal order, Brown provides appeal was timely filed. of appeal * cannot satisfy no proof that his notice of Moreover, Brown s May 6, 2014 notice the requirements for Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988). 2 a motion for extension or a reopening of the appeal period and, thus, it will not be construed as such. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), (a)(6). Based on the foregoing, we deny Brown s motion for appointment of jurisdiction. counsel and dismiss the appeal for lack of We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
